BY EDWARD THEOPHILUS

The security threat to India is a quite complicated archetype and many people confuse with the term the security threat to India. The major reason people get confused about the nature of the threat is specifically delineated and people have a feeling it like a groping in the dark.   Since Indian independence in 1947 Indian bureaucrats manipulated and accused any support to surrounding countries from China as a security threat to India which accused Chinese aided projects in  Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh. There has not been logic in the manipulation. 

The term security treat could be defined and applied in many ways, during the cold war India played a police role on account of Russia, and when the economic power of Russia declined and the Soviet Union divided to different countries India had to change the police role, but the economic role has become more important. India has a severe economic challenge first many surrounding countries have determined import substitution and domestic production of agricultural produces. In this environment, India has no options but to manipulate the security threat against the economic policies of surrounding countries.   It seems that the term security threat is used to attract investment from outside to surrounding countries, to India rather than a military threat to India from China or any other country.

Generally, a security threat to a country could come in various ways such as political, economic, social, cultural, religious, and many other ways. Print media in Sri Lanka broadly discuss the appropriate policy guide to foreign relations and a famous legal advisor, Mr.Neville Ladduwahetty mentioned in his recent article published in Daily News that neutrality” is the appropriate policy guide to foreign relations.  The term neutrality is a complicated term and how the concept of neutrality should be practically applied in a complex environment is a problem to many.  The concept of neutrality is applied in respect of India only or with other countries in the region or the other countries of the world may be a problem. During the cold war era, certain foreign policy analysts delated view that no country can stick to Non-Alignment according to the developments of the modern world, and all countries need to follow NON-NEUTRAL POLICY”. Logically all countries in the world must align to a power bloc.

Academics I spoke to had a problem explaining the difference between the terms Neutrality” and Non-Align”, and some stated that the two terms have a similarity of meaning and in practice, there may be contrariety.  Sri Lanka has been a giant of Non-Align policy since the Bandung summit and India has also been active in the association of Non-Align nations. When there was a conflict between India and Pakistan creating a separate country, Bangladesh,  Sri Lanka faced obscurity handling foreign relations between India and Pakistan, both countries were members of the Non-Align movement. As a first-year university student after the JVP conflict in 1971, I observed that Prime Minister, Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike was handling the problem very successful way. Some people stated that Mrs.B used her relationship with the Nehru family to tackle the issue, and how did she ignore Mr.Yahiya Khan’s behavior was unknown to people of Sri Lanka.    I also heard that Mrs.Sirimavo Bandaranaike intervened to settle a conflict between India and China. Nobody explained to me the strategy used by Mrs.B.   What kind of policy guide was practiced by Mrs. Bandaranaike, Neutrality” or Non-Alignment”.

The idea of the SECURITY THREAT TO INDIA would have practically considered on both occasions, and how it was determined by the foreign policy-makers is hard to describe.

After the COVID 19 pandemic, the world has faced a different environment.  The truth is the military research, and invented weapons have failed to fight with the pandemic.  More people have died from the pandemic than any war recorded in history. Although India and China can treat any country by military means, both countries cannot threaten the pandemic. In this situation,  what is the use of military power, and what is important neutrality, or non-alignment? The security threat to India’s concept has failed to stop the pandemic in India.

My feeling is if India, China, and the surrounding countries work together the security threat from the pandemic could be challenged or stopped if they spend trillions of dollars to strengthen the immune system of people instead of military power.